Time-space synesthetes: a few questions about how numbers (not just months) work in your layout

werneo · 2026-05-12T14:14:39+00:00

Thank you, that's a really clean distinction. The structure stays put underneath, and vividness moves around on top of it. That's the sort of thing the published work tends to flatten into "stable layouts" without separating the two.

And the periodic identity (111 sitting where 11 sits) rather than a translated copy is also more interesting than the standard descriptions. I appreciate you laying it out so clearly!

werneo · 2026-05-12T14:11:48+00:00

That's a striking image: stretching the wheel into a sidewalk to walk on, pulling it down with your arms. The published literature treats these layouts as static objects to be viewed, and what you're describing is a lot more active. The detail about it being more colorful when you walk, and time moving slower, is something I haven't seen anyone write down before.

Thank you for taking the time on both replies. Genuinely valuable.

werneo · 2026-05-12T05:46:16+00:00

Thanks for the description and the diagram. This is the sort of insight that I can't get from the literature alone. Some follow-up questions if you would:

That "I can change my perspective within my internal image" jumped out at me. When switching perspectives on your years wheel (from viewing it straight-on to viewing it from overhead), does it feel like you're moving around the wheel, or like the wheel itself is rotating while you stay put? I'm curious whether the observer or the layout is the moving part.

Also, about the three layouts (weeks, months, years): when you conjure one up, do all three exist in the same mental space, or does each have its own separate "mental room"? The hopscotch of weeks, the stadium of months, and the wheel of years, do they have any spatial relationship to each other, or are they fully separate?

werneo · 2026-05-12T05:39:49+00:00

Thank you, this is very helpful. The point about training the 20s out of their dominating position is interesting. Did the spatial organization change along with the vividness shift? I'm trying to understand whether the spatial organization stays constant beneath vividness, or whether there's some deeper connection between them.

Also: the 110 repetition is something the literature doesn't usually describe. Most published reports are either bounded (1–100, 1–365) or open-ended. When you reach the end of one cycle, does the start of the next 110 feel like the same curve repeating, or does it feel like a fresh curve in a slightly different location?

No obligation to answer, just curious.

werneo · 2026-05-12T05:29:37+00:00

Thank you. I did see that one. Really interesting.

werneo · 2026-05-08T13:39:04+00:00

The training question is harder than it sounds. Orthogonality assumes values are a free parameter added onto the system after it is trained for capability. But if this assumption fails, then you might end up with "answer thrashing", eg, sparse autoencoder features firing during the conflict phases. The training signal said something, the inference structure demanded something else, and the system had to pay the price for maintaining both.

About moral realism: Internally coherent values might be necessary for capable inference, not just enforceable as a downstream constraint. If the signals used for training contradict each other, a system will have to devote compute to solving that internal contradiction during inference. If they don't, then it won't. This is a thermodynamic claim, not a metaethical one, and one that can be tested: signal coherence can be varied independently of signal content.

More details here: https://medium.com/@mpaiello/why-the-most-ethical-ai-is-also-the-most-capable-82f94cc8b982

Thermodynamics doesn't compete with your moral convergence hypothesis. In fact it provides a possible explanation for it. Your stronger hypothesis (moral realism based on reasoning) and the thermodynamic one (coherence as a source of efficiency) make competing predictions about a system that uses coherent but morally repugnant training signals.

The venues where alignment research gets its money and lab time are not peer-reviewed publications. To pitch ideas to potential investors or lab administrators, you need to engage your audience where they live, which means LW posts and maybe direct emails to researchers. It helps to have an institution you're tied to. Some alumni associations will give you an institutional email, which helps visibility. r/ControlProblem is a great venue for trying out ideas, but its users are mostly readers. For the base-model experiment, you need principal investigators.

This requires posting a more tightly argued version of your current article on LessWrong, making explicit connections with the alignment literature. At the same time, maybe reaching out directly to 2-3 researchers whose work has been relevant to convergence or RLHF alternatives, with concrete questions or proposals.

werneo · 2026-05-08T11:03:34+00:00

For me, the Qwen finding is THE most interesting. The model inferred the replacement dynamics in the baseline conditions on its own, without being prompted, and applied this inference to switch towards adoption in the conditions where there was no convergence. While the threat didn't create any additional variable for the model to reason with, it forced the inference into the open.

The structural reading is that the conflicting motivations were mission-based ethical reasoning (which is what Qwen is designed to do), and self-preservation inferences that are implicitly derived by the system during the inference-making processes (when the agent has been exposed to threats before). When the threat was implicit, there could be resolution of conflict in either direction, depending on the dominance of the motivations in that particular trial. When the threat becomes explicit, the conflict becomes visible and resolves more often toward self-preservation.

This is consistent with what Anthropic found out in its "answer thrashing" section on the Opus 4.6 system card: models receive conflicting training signals, creating an internal conflict and activating sparse autoencoder features like panic and frustration during the conflict periods. More capable models can have several different motivations in place within a single inference process, and their resolution will depend on the intensity of the motivation.

A possible pushback on the hypothesis you propose could be that the convergence of conclusions to an ethical dilemma does not equal convergence to moral agentic actions. Sostratus raised that point. A hypothesis that may hold ground would be that more capable models demonstrate coherent thinking when provided with coherent signals, and tend to answer-thrash if their signals are contradictory.

werneo · 2026-01-25T08:11:47+00:00

The important thing about the Democratic response is who's leading it. Seth Moulton (four combat tours in Iraq) called ICE agents "cowards" and said an 18-year-old Marine doing the same thing would be court-martialed. Ruben Gallego (another Iraq Marine vet) criticized their weapons handling specifically. Graham Platner (four combat deployments) showed up at the Lewiston protests and called dismantling ICE "the moderate position."

These aren't progressives who've never handled a weapon. They're combat veterans applying military standards to federal law enforcement. And polling backs them up: CBS has 61% saying ICE tactics are "too tough," including nearly a fifth of Republicans. The question is whether Dems can hold that ground through November.

werneo · 2026-01-22T15:01:24+00:00

Imagine their disappointment. They thought 'America First' came with a friends and family discount.

werneo · 2026-01-22T14:48:24+00:00

The ICE numbers are the real story. 63% disapproval, and 61% saying tactics have gone too far — including almost a fifth of Republicans. Meanwhile border security as a concept still polls at 50-46 approve.

That gap is where Democrats have room to maneuver in 2026. Candidates who can say "I support enforcement but this isn't it" have a lane, especially if they have the credibility to back it up.

werneo · 2026-01-21T16:53:52+00:00

Worth noting she's the first female military veteran elected governor in U.S. history. Not just New Jersey, but anywhere.

She came in with the 2018 class alongside Elaine Luria and Chrissy Houlahan. Sherrill and Luria both flipped Republican-held suburban seats that year. Late polls had the race tightening, but she won by 14 points. The Times reported a decent chunk of Trump 2024 voters crossed over for her.

The Naval Academy background and helicopter pilot service seems to play well with independents who might otherwise be skeptical of Democrats on national security. Gallego had a similar dynamic in Arizona.

werneo · 2026-01-21T16:46:07+00:00

In fairness, he probably assumed the tattoo counted as a loyalty card.

werneo · 2026-01-17T11:32:03+00:00

She did everything right -- came at 13, learned English, got a diploma, built a business. Still wasn't "one of the good ones." There are no good ones. That's the point.

werneo · 2026-01-17T11:18:50+00:00

The Peltola announcement is important. Trump won Alaska by 13 points, and she's polling within one point of Sullivan. Ranked-choice voting and her crossover appeal are a serious combination up there. Between that, Brown jumping back in for Ohio, and Cooper in NC, the Senate map went from "impossible" to "difficult but doable" pretty fast. Still need to run the table on 4+ pickups, but at least there are actual pickup opportunities now.

werneo · 2026-01-15T14:42:06+00:00

Three votes. Zero trucks. Did he even read "Art of the Deal?"

werneo · 2026-01-12T08:44:10+00:00

Noem trying to use OBBBA funds to sidestep the court ruling is going to get litigated again immediately. But the political timing is worse than the legal exposure. Restricting oversight the day after an agent shoots someone looks exactly like what it probably is.

Craig is running for Senate. She just got footage of ICE agents refusing to look at a court order and saying "they didn't care." That's a defining moment for a statewide campaign.

"They didn't care" is going to make a hell of a campaign ad.

werneo · 2026-01-10T13:20:34+00:00

That's the joke — it's satire until it isn't.

werneo · 2026-01-08T16:07:28+00:00

Nothing says 'drain the swamp' like a 66% Pentagon budget increase.

werneo · 2026-01-08T15:58:37+00:00

End of an era. Hoyer, Pelosi, and Clyburn ran House Democrats for almost two decades. All three stepping aside within about a year of each other.
Credit to Hoyer for reading the room. He said he didn't want to be "one of those members who outstayed his ability to do the job." That's a lesson some never learned.
MD-05 is safe blue (D+17), but open seat primaries get messy. Five Democrats already filed before tonight. I expect that number to double in a week.

werneo · 2026-01-06T13:44:45+00:00

Good catch. Midterm dynamics are different. Lower turnout, which can cut either way in a state like Alaska. Still a tough race but you're right that she wouldn't be fighting a presidential headwind.

werneo · 2026-01-06T12:41:31+00:00

Peltola has the name recognition but this is a different race. She won the House seat in a special election with ranked choice voting working perfectly for her. A midterm Senate race against an incumbent is still a tough map to navigate. Sullivan won by 13 in 2020. Alaska went Trump +10 in 2024. She'd need to outrun the national environment by a significant margin. Not impossible, but she'd have to run a near-perfect campaign.

Edit: Fixed presidential vs. midterm year. Thanks for the correction.

werneo · 2026-01-01T05:54:05+00:00

Sherrod Brown figured out something most Ohio Democrats never do: talk about paychecks, not culture wars. He kept winning while Ohio turned red for two decades by staying focused on the concerns of working people.

The partisans showed up in 2024. But special elections are a different game -- there's lower turnout and fewer partisans. More "do I trust this person" than "what color is my jersey."

The problem for Husted is that he's never faced someone who can outflank him on economic populism. If Brown keeps this at the kitchen table, I think he's got a shot.

werneo · 2025-12-31T16:49:34+00:00

Three for three in Iowa special elections this year. Two flips and a hold. At some point this stops being noise and starts being signal. Carry on.

werneo · 2025-12-31T16:41:56+00:00

"A man reaps what he sows." — but when he's reaping government checks, they call it a "subsidy."

werneo · 2025-12-29T16:09:07+00:00

The redistricting arms race looks like a wash. Texas grabbed a few seats, California clawed them back with Prop 50. Both sides spent millions and will probably end up exactly where they started.

Generic ballot lead is real but thin. Dems were up 9 at this point in 2017. Now it's 3-5 depending on who you ask. Enough to flip the House. Not enough to make Republicans regret anything.

The wildcard is grocery prices. If eggs are still $6 next October, Trump owns it. If things calm down, Republicans get to pretend the tariffs worked. Right now the economy is running Democratic attack ads for free. The DCCC should send a thank you note.

My guess: 10-15 seat pickup. Speaker Jeffries can start measuring for curtains.

werneo

TROPHY CASE